The New Nation - Internet Edition

Responses to plastic pollution

Muhammad Selim Hossain

After seeing through the dreadful negative effects, movements have already been launched against plastic pollution. For instance, a United States law, implementing an international agreement called MARPOL Annex V, became effective on December 31, 1988. It prohibits the disposal of plastics into the marine environment and requires ports to provide reception facilities for ship-generated plastic wastes. More recently, in response to increasing public concern over environmental hazards caused by plastic, many countries are conducting various solid waste management programmes including plastic waste reduction by development of bio-degradable plastic materials. Intensive research is going on for making the bio-degradable plastic. Some bio-degradable plastic materials which are under development include: 1. PHAs 2.Polylactdes 3.Alipahatic polyesters 4. Polysaccharides 5. Co- polymers. PHB is an example of 100% bio-degradable plastic. Approximately a dozen of inherently bio-degradable plastics are now in the market, with range of properties suitable for various consumer products. Besides, biotechnological processes are also being developed as an alternative to existing route or to get new bio-degradable biopolymers. In the mean time, a number of developed and developing countries across the world have formulated land enforced law banning on plastic bag use and other plastic products, such as plastic bag use in Bangladesh from 1st March 2002, plastic bags and other non-reusable plastic products in India, plastic bags in Somalia from 2005, free distribution of single-use plastic bags and disposable cutlery and dishes in Taiwan from January 2003. To discourage the use of plastic products, some countries have already raised increased tax on plastic products including Denmark from 1994, Germany from January 2002, Ireland from March 2002, South Africa from May 2003, and Switzerland from 2002 while some other countries are highly considering a plus tax on plastic products including United Kingdom, Kenya and Australia (Monir and Ahmed, 2005).

Reduction Strategies:

Reducing plastic pollution is a little bit complicated job. It needs to make wide sense and awareness of the problem even to the individual level and to act to counter it accordingly. However, here are some control strategies that we can take to reverse the tide of toxic, non-biodegradable pollution so that it will not overtake our planet, the only home of living beings.

Personal Level

v Take no plastic bags from the grocer's self.

v Refuse plastic bags at the check-out counter.

v Don't buy plastic sandwich bags.

v Buy beverages in sustainable containers like glass bottles or cans.

v Use water purifying device rather than to use plastic water bottle.

v Make a habit of thinking about what comes with each thing that you buy.

v Look for and reward Earth-friendly packaging choices, such as- buy greeting cards in paper boxes instead of clear plastic shells. Use pens that refill instead of landfill.

v Remove plastics from your office and business farms.

v Building the habit of keeping plastic out of water ways.

v In case of shopping, use own bags or recycled paper bags.

v Always remember litter generates litter. We should not dispose of plastic in the sewerage system.

v At the beach dispose of plastic and other litter in the bins provided. If these facilities are inadequate, contact the local authority responsible and lodge a complaint. Take your litter back home with you if there are no receptacles on the beach. Pick up any plastic litter you may see on the beach or in the rock pools in the vicinity in which you are sitting or walking.

v In the street never throw plastic or other litter out of your car or drop it on the pavement or in the gutter.

Organizational and Institutional level:

v The plastic that can't be recycled not to be produced in the first place.

v Plastic wrappings and bags should carry a warning label stating the dangers of plastic pollution.

v Reduce the amount of plastic used in packaging which is usually immediately thrown away.

v The Fishing community should not throw away waste lines, net or plastic litter in water.

v Building a better recycling infrastructure. Only about three percent of plastics are recycled according to the US Environmental Protection Agency.

v Recycled plastic can be used to make things like trash cans, park benches, playground equipments, decks and kayaks.

v Special fleece-like fabrics used in clothes and blankets can be made out of recycled plastic bottles.

v Practice and promote proper disposal of plastics in home and at the beach.

National (Government) level:

v All nations should adopt a "zero plastic waste" policy.

v Govt. should accelerate research into alternatives.

v To subsidize the makers of bio-plastics.

v Support and promote support for recycling schemes.

v Draft a law to control the use of plastic products. Ban the use of single-use disposable plastic products (cup, plate, bottle, box and cutely etc.).

v Raise plus tax on plastic products.

v Reduce tax on environment-friendly alternatives to plastic products.

v In special areas, completely ban the use of polythene and plastic products, for instance in parks, by the sides of lakes, government offices and institutions.

v Raise public awareness concerning the harmful effects of plastic products and the benefits of their alternatives through the use of TV, radio and newspapers.

Role of Media and Environ concerned NGOs:

v Launch public awareness building programs against plastic products including seminars, symposium, human chain and workshop etc.

v Re-use of plastics should be encouraged.

v Through the mass media and directly inform of the members of the public and government about the harmful effects of the use of one time disposable plastic products.

v Work with the government to ensure enactment and enforcement of a law banning the use of one-time disposable plastic products, all polythene bags and the increase of taxes on the raw materials imported and used for plastic products.

Concluding Remarks:

To size up, plastic pollution is one of the worth-mentioning concerning environmental issues of today to the outside world and a potential threat to Bangladesh as well. Toxic plastic pollutes air, water and soil, kills wildlife, poisons seafood and sea floor, poses serious health hazards and could even exacerbate global warming. Even it could be creating new habitats that don't virtually suit living beings down to the ground. Under these circumstances, the problem of plastic pollution is serious and requires further urgent study. Yet, we should not go without realizing the eternal truth that plastic is not itself a problem.

Rather it is more useful, popular and really fantastic because of its some appealing qualities which can be produced with relatively little damage to the environment. But truly problems are with us; problems are improper production process, uses and careless and unthoughtfully disposal of plastics and plastic products to the environment. Now, we all should build up a habit of thinking more in general as conscious consumption is not only good for the Earth but also for us and take necessary steps for plastic waste reduction, reuse and recycling. So let us brood over the issue in our own ways, do the duties and discharge responsibilities normally and ethically bestowed on us from our respective platforms towards a plastic pollution free environment and launch a campaign essential to a green and peaceful future in non-violent way.

(Muhammad Selim Hossain is B.Sc. (Hon's) final year student of the Dept. of Geography and Environment, University of Dhaka.)

Just to thrust pesticides on farmers

Ravleen Kaur

As a part of a centrally-sponsored scheme non-recommended pesticides were being distributed to farmers in Rajasthan, India. Farmers were being forced to buy unnecessary pesticides as a part of the subsidy package under the National Horticulture Mission (NHM). These chemicals have not been approved for use in the crops that were being cultivated in the area.

Pesticides like endosulfan, monocrotophos and malathion were distributed in areas where crops like coriander and fenugreek were grown. According to the information available on the website of Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee, the apex pesticide regulatory body, on July 7, 2008, none of these chemicals has been recommended for both the crops.

Six litres of a pesticide along with 40 kg of urea per hectare came with a 75 per cent subsidy under this scheme, which is part of the National Horticulture Mission (NHM).

Seeds too were given to the farmer. The farmer was free to buy whatever pesticide he chose from village cooperative stores by paying only 25 per cent of the cost. He was to receive a bill for his payment. The scheme allows for subsidy on inputs to support cultivation over a maximum of four hectares.

NHM was launched in 2005 across the country to double India's horticultural production and take it to 300 million tonnes by 2012. There are several schemes under the programme, which are designed to enhance output. Each state horticultural mission introduces government scheme according to the land-and-climate profile of each district. This particular scheme was introduced in 17 of Rajasthan's 32 districts, mostly in the eastern part. The preferred horticultural crop choice of farmers here were spices, herbs and flowers.

Even though the choice of seeds and pesticides was the farmer's under this scheme, rules were disregarded. The end result was an agriculture input subsidy scam in the state. While farmers, who availed of this scheme, chose the seed for crops grown conventionally in his area, he was at a loss when it came to the array of pesticides now presented to him. It thus became easy for vested interests to influence his choice of the chemicals.

This is clearly in violation of procedure stipulated by the government. Specific pesticides can only be distributed to farmers by the government if there is a report of an epidemic or disease outbreak in the crops in that area. Use of pesticides other than those recommended by the agriculture department is illegal. "No permits were issued by the agricultural officer regarding any outbreak," says Ranjeet Singh Gathala, the then state horticulture secretary. It is not clear who recommended the package of pesticides and fertilizer for this scheme. "A farmer will buy anything when made to believe that it will increase production. So when they were giving us all these products at just 25 per cent of the rate, who would have refused," said Bhawarlal Gujjar, sarpanch of Baluheda panchayat of Kota district.

More than 50 farmers in Baluheda bought pesticides, seeds and fertilizers for coriander and fenugreek cultivation at subsidized rates under the scheme in 2006. But these ostensible beneficiaries of the centrally funded scheme suffered heavy losses last year as the seeds were of very poor quality and the pesticides unnecessary.

Premchand Devishankar normally grew more than 18 quintal of the spice, coriander, on his one hectare piece of land in a season.

But last year, with the subsidized seeds and pesticides, he could only get a 5-quintal yield on the same patch. What was worse, the rate he got in the market was half. Overuse of chemicals and poor seed quality had led to poor harvest. This year, when he knew better, Devishankar paid market rates for seeds. He got a good yield in terms of both quality and quantity. He sold his yield at Rs 6,000 a quintal this year, which is double the rate he got last year.

Devishankar also saved on pesticides this year. He used only a single spray of pesticides to control laungiya rog, which is common in the area. A single spray of pesticides is all farmers here need for their horticultural yield. Clearly, there was no need for the mega dose of pesticides that was supplied to them under the subsidized scheme. Even then they could not control laungiya rog last year, sarpanch Bhawarlal Gujjar told Down To Earth . The 20-odd farmers in Baluheda who took subsidy for fenugreek cultivation also had low quality yield and thus reduced rates for the spice, he added.

Jayanti Shankar, another Baluheda farmer, showed Down to Earth tins of endosulfan, triadimefon and malathion that were lying unused. "After a while, we realized that these were of no use. This year, we had a bumper crop without spraying any of these," he said.

Baluheda was not the only place in Rajasthan where reports of irregularities were pouring in from. In March 2007, Gathala received many complaints from farmers all over the state, especially from Chomu and Bilwa areas of Jaipur district. He studied them carefully and found a massive scam was going on in the form of fudged bills, vouchers and also otherwise. Certain cooperative societies were favoured with sums as high as Rs 21 lakh of the Rs 1 crore central allocation per year. Others village cooperatives were ignored. Nurseries supplying saplings were also part of the scam, he found. There were also complaints regarding low quality seeds and pesticides apart from no actual distribution even though the documents with the Horticulture Department showed bills signed by farmers.

Baluheda farmers told Down To Earth they too were not given bills for whatever they bought from the cooperative store. "When the NHM people put up an exhibition here, they said that we will have to pay only Rs 1700 for all inputs plus about Rs 200 as insurance for the crop. The amount went up to Rs 2200 when we actually got the seeds in November-December 2006. They never gave us any bills which we got to know are mandatory when the scandal was exposed. They just made us sign a blank receipt which they took with them," said Madan Mohan, a victim of the scam in Baluheda. All farmers here also say that they never got any insurance money for the crop gone bad. "Who knows what amount they have put on those bills in our name?" asks Madan Mohan.

Secretary Gathala wrote a letter to all district collectors, also chairpersons of district NHM societies, to get a social audit of the scheme done for the two previous years. "I also sent a letter to heads of all co-operative societies in the 17 districts asking them to take disciplinary action or lodge FIRs in cases where forged signature of farmers were used to get funds and the benefits never went to them," said Gathala. Subsequently, in March 2007, he wrote to the chief secretary of Rajasthan referring to a farmers' organization accusing the agricultural minister, Prabhu Lal Saini, of chauth vasuli (extortion). "No disciplinary action has been taken against the concerned official in the minister's constituency where farmers were supplied wrong saplings," the letter stated. Nor has any social audit taken place so far.

In May this year, Gathala came out openly against the state agriculture minister. "On what basis the dealers who supplied pesticide to all 17 districts under NHM were selected and what is their reputation in the agriculture department's records will be revealed if the audit is conducted. The influence of pesticide dealers on corrupt officials will be amply clear with the audit. The minister says that there has been no problem, so why are they so scared of conducting the audit?" asks Gathala.

The fallout of Gathala's actions has been the institution of two simultaneous inquiries: one to identify the minister's role in the scam and another to verify if Gathala's coming out in the open was against the conduct rule or not. Gathala was rewarded with two transfers, the final one being to the category of 'awaiting posting order'. Two months later he retired, on June 30 this year.

The inquiry into the scam does not at all touch the irregularities that took place. "Till now, we haven't found a single proof. My job is only to find out about the minister's involvement and we have called for all documents from the department to find out if there is any such thing. However, all irregularities are at a very low level. Certainly, a minister can never be involved in corruption at such low level corruption," said Harishankar Bhavda, vice-president of Economic Policy and Reform Council. Bhavda has been investigating Saini's role in the scam.

The farmers and Gathala know the truth will never emerge till an audit is done. Yet another bureaucrat who tries to correct the system is victimized. The farmers of Baluheda have only one lament: "It is the government's money, let it do what it wants with it. Why does it have to play with our lives?" Cynicism runs deep in Baluheda while pesticide companies register profits at its cost.

(CSE/Down To Earth Feature Service)

Key to tackling global food crisis

Even as national governments make strong efforts to fight off bankruptcy for their financial institutions, the lands that support their farmers and ensure food security for their populations are facing ever-increasing threats of degradation.

According to Dr William Dar, Director General of the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) and the Chair of the Committee on Science and Technology of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), the business as usual cannot continue when it comes to dealing with land degradation.

"The health of our lands is the basis of our food chain and our climate, and of the livelihoods of our poorest peoples. Without healthy lands, people cannot thrive. Without a healthy atmosphere, land and biological systems cannot be sustained. Science tells us that the dynamics of land, climate and biodiversity are intimately connected. And we know that the lives of the poor hang in the balance, because they depend directly on these ecosystem services," Dr Dar stated.

Dr Dar said that positive impacts on combating land degradation can come only with the application of good science. "We live on a precious planet that hosts abundant, diverse and intelligent life that is unique in the universe. If we fail to combat land degradation and desertification, the consequences can be disastrous. We must use science to become better stewards of our precious inheritance."

The world is seeing a food, energy, climate and credit crisis, each having repercussions on every sphere of human activity. Land degradation will add to the adverse impact of each of these problems.

According to the 2008 Global Hunger Index, 33 countries are showing alarming levels of hunger. Though the right to food is a basic human right, there are close to a billion people who suffer from chronic hunger. The FAO's 2006 State of Food Insecurity Report cites agricultural growth as being critical for reducing hunger.

Failing to take measures to address desertification, land degradation and drought threats to sustainable land management will have a severe impact on food and water security, Dr Dar said. The UNCCD mechanism provides the platform for bringing together policy makers and global scientific institutions to combat land degradation and desertification.

The Committee on Science and Technology (CST) of UNCCD is collaborating with five international research bodies, including ICRISAT, to bring together the best of research on bio-physical and socio-economic monitoring and assessment of desertification and land degradation, to support decision-making in land and water management.

The CST will take the lead in generating a baseline based on the most robust data available on biophysical and socio-economic trends and gradually harmonizing relevant scientific approaches in affected areas to enable better decision-making.

It will also improve knowledge of the interactions between climate change adaptation, drought mitigation and restoration of degraded land in affected areas, which will enable development of tools to assist decision-making and put in place effective knowledge-sharing systems at the global, regional, sub-regional and national levels. Eventually this will support policymakers and end users, and engage science and technology networks and institutions to support UNCCD implementation.

As an advanced international agricultural research institute working in the semi-arid tropics, which is the frontier for preventing land degradation and desertification, ICRISAT and partners are spearheading many initiatives. These are in synergy with the strategy of UNCCD, and include:

* Implementation of the ICRISAT-developed a "microdosing" technique in semi-arid sub-Saharan Africa, which involves the application of small, affordable quantities of fertilizer with the seed at planting time or as a top dressing 3 or 4 weeks after emergence. This enhances fertilizer use efficiency and improves productivity.

* The Bioreclamation oaf Degraded Lands (BDL) project in barren, unproductive soils that are widespread in the West African Sahel. This combines simple effective techniques such as zaï holes, Conservation Agriculture, planting-basin cultivation, trenches and land scarification that concentrate limited water and nutrient resources close to the plant roots, reduces erosion and prevents water loss.

* Planting of high-value crops that restore organic matter and soil texture earn a handsome profit for the poor from fruit and gum trees, hardy leafy vegetables and legumes in the Sahel.

* In Asia, ICRISAT has partnered with other organizations and has evolved a new consortium watershed management model based on a holistic systems approach called the Integrated Genetic and Natural Resource Management (IGNRM) strategy.

Dr Dar concluded that with sound science backstopping strong policy the battle against land degradation and desertification can be won to prevent bankruptcy of soil, one of the greatest assets of all economies.

(Source: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)